Wednesday, August 3, 2011

How Do You Define Libertarianism?

I've often debated with people on the idea of whether libertarianism (or any other -ism, "movement", category, etc.) should be a Big Tent or a Little Tent. Obviously, the Tent gets bigger the broader your definition of a category tends to be.

Some people associate libertarianism with wanting more freedom, therefore anyone who claims to want more freedom, however it is defined, would be a libertarian.

A prominent libertarian blogger many of you have heard of once told me that a libertarian was anyone who hates the State.

My preferred definition of libertarian has always been "Anyone who accepts the primacy of the Non-Aggression Principle in social affairs and who applies this principle in interpreting the acts of other individuals, as well as themselves, in a fully consistent manner, making no excuses or exceptions."

I admit my definition is a bit wordy (surprise?) but I think it is more technical and specific. Sometimes I add as a corollary that acceptance of the NAP implies self-ownership and self-ownership implies private property rights. But I think at a minimum a libertarian is someone who sees the initiation of the use of force by any individual, in any society, at any time to be a criminal act.

I think you can want more freedom without being a consistent advocate of the NAP. Wanting freedom and understanding the NAP are not necessarily dependent ideas.

I think you can hate the State without being a person who consistently applies the NAP to their observations of human action. For example, you could be a common thief and still hate the State. Therefore, I think you can hate the State and still not be a libertarian.

I'm not trying to pick nits here, rather I am trying to wrestle with something important. If I'm going to label myself and be labeled by others as a libertarian, I need to have a clear, consistent and sufficiently restrictive definition of what that word means if I am to understand it myself. If I don't understand it myself I have little chance of communicating it to other people.


  1. Is it possible to arrive at the NAP without the Hoppe derivation beginning with self-ownership?

  2. Not sure I have a thoughtful response to that unless you have a proposed alternative you want to put up for consideration.

  3. I don't have an alternative but was simply wondering if you knew of any.

  4. I am not sure how you construct a moral framework around the NAP without relying on or utilizing the concept of self-ownership. It's hard to define "aggression" without the pre-existing boundaries established by self-ownership.

    There may be another way but I don't know what it is myself.

  5. I think this is a great way to distinguish between the rationalist, or natural law, libertarian and the utilitarian-libertarian.

  6. Zach bush,

    What is? How do you define it?

  7. Top 10 Online Casino Sites - CasinoWow
    With over 4,000 casino games on offer, we've got a good choice of 1xbet the best 온카지노 online 카지노사이트 casinos that cater for the high-rollers! If you've ever been

  8. I read what you wrote. These Things are fascinating. What an interesting blog it is. I appreciate you for taking the time to discuss your ideas and expertise on this subject.
    Abogado Divorcios Fredericksburg VA
    lawyer for bankruptcy near me

  9. Great site and a great topic. I’m amazed to read this. It’s excellent. Write more

  10. Really interesting, You’re overly skilled blogger. Looking forward to your fantastic post.

  11. Keep up the great work, good ones are hard to find.